Whitbread beers in the 1950's

Ever wonder what Whitbread were brewing in Chiswell Street during the 1950's? No? I didn't really expect you would have. Now me, there's another story. I have. Often.

Wonder no longer. Here are (pretty much) all the details you need to know about Whitbread's Ales. (Not the Stouts, because they're in different brewing books. I've not got around to those yet.) It wasn't a particularly exciting range. Mild, Best Mild, Bitter, IPA and a couple of Brown Ales. With the exception of Double Brown (which was discontinued towards the end of the 1950's), all had gravities below 1040º.

Here's one of my lovely tables:


You'll be seeing more of these later. When I produce a 1959 Beer Style Guide.

Truman's Burton Ales in 1877

Continuing my erratic series of random beer tables, today we've details of Truman's Ales. From their Burton brewery. Just a couple of years after it opened.

A small note on the beer names. I say names, but they're really just combinations of letters and numbers. The Ales ran from 1 to 9, the Pale Ales from P1 to Pale Ale. This is what the other bits mean:

K = Keeping,
B = Bottling,
R = Runner.

Unfortunately, I didn't photograph logs for the strongest 3 Ales, No.1 , No.2 and No.3. Sorry about that. But they only brewed them a few times a year. You try finding one when there are several hundred pages to look through. And you've allotted just 4 minutes per book.

I'd love to know where Truman sold all these beers. With the Pale Ales it's simple enough. They were sold in their pubs in London. But what about all the Milds. Where the hell did they go? The brewery in Brick Lane produced Mild Ales. What would be the point of shipping them down from Burton?


Maybe more of this tomorrow. Or perhaps that's enough tables for this week. I'll think about it overnight.

Beer fest vs geek fest

It's probably just me feeling pissed off about having to miss the De Molen Festival. But a trend is starting to worry me: the geek festival.

One of the things I like about festivals such as the GBBF and ZBF is their inclusivity. They don't just try to appeal to the beer nut (or even The Beer Nut). Their aim is to pull in normal punters, too, and expose them to a wider range of beer than they might come across in their dull, meaningless existence. Which means they don't just concentrate on the loony juice end of the beer spectrum, but have plenty of fairly mainstream choices as well.

Those who will never knowingly drink the same beer twice are dismissive of this type of festival. Nott enough new, weird or plain ludicrous beers for them to tick. Which is why a new breed of festival has appeared. I call them geek fests. They offer nothing but the rare and unusual, preferably exclusive, beers. Should any member of the public accidentally be lured in by the bright lights, they aren't likely to feel very included, nor find anything they could drink more than a mouthful of.

What I love about beer is that it's democratic and inclusive. Unlike wine or whisky, which have their heads firmly stuck up their own arses. Let's not throw this away, eh? I don't want to do my drinking in a geek bubble. I want to share my love of beer with everyone, not just a few similarly-minded obsessives. Beer should stay mainstream.

I don't want to see good beer be an exclusive club, only open to those willing to fork out most of their cash and time in its pursuit. Let's keep it for everyone.

Table - the new Imperial?

In these days of continual upsizing, what about some thinking around the corner? Pushing the box. Opening the envelope.

Imperial barrel tooth-dissolver this. Grand Reserva infected that ("It's supposed to be sour, sir."). Tastebud-scourer the other. Sextuple Bock, Belgian Dodecahedron, Infinity IPA, Tharg Grand Master of the Universe (and any of other Universes not yet discovered or theoretically possible) Stout, Alcoholic's Breakfast Brown ("We throw the Bourbon in for you!").

Table IPA. What about that? I've some great Whitbread, low-gravity IPA recipes. Table Porter. Barclay Perkins made one in the 19th century. You're welcome to its details. Family Ale - no problem.

Beer isn't just a sledgehammer. It can be a toy hammer. Aaah. Tetley's Mild.

Low-alcohol beers that aren't just stunts. Stuff from - let's think - 1.5% to 3.5% ABV. Proper beers, to be drunk appropriately.

Here's some possibilities:

• LIPA - the light, bottled IPA brewed in the South of England, specifically designed to annoy future generations of style nazis
• GA - Government Ale - what could taste nicer that that?
• MA - when WW I drinkers looked back on watery GA with fondness
• 1850's Table Porter - stronger than 1930's standard Porter
• 1950's Mild and Best Mild - could either get you pissed?

Things that, I believe, are a challenge to brew. If you want to get people to drink them. As harvesters, glass-blowers, furnace men and coal heavers once did. OK, the poor probably weren't always that fussy. You get my drift.

Yet another book

The books just keep on coming. A parcel of freshly-minted copies of "War!" fell on my doormat yesterday. It's Volume VI of my Mini Book Series.

It may seem odd that "War!" is appearing after Volumes VIII and IX. There's a good reason for that. But It's also a pretty tedious one. I won't bother you with it. As usual, I'll be sending out 9 signed copies to the lucky few.

You must be able to guess what's coming. A competition. With as prize a copy of "War!".

What can I ask you this time? I've used up all the good questions. Well, maybe not good. Not terrible. I've asked you all the not too crap questions I could think of. Ah, I know. This is a good one.

You probably can't remember my Mini Book Series concept. Eleven volumes published throughout 2009. Volumes I - IX have been published. XI minus IX . . . I make that II. Two volumes to go. One of those is just about done. Just one book left to write. I think I know what it will be. But I haven't decided 100%. Which is where the competition comes in.

Suggest a title or theme for volume XI. I don't promise to use it. But I might. More likely, I'll just fiddle with the title. Much less work.

Go on then. Make a suggestion.

Porter brewing in the 1850's

In general, the process of brewing Porter was the same as that for Ale. The main difference was in mashing. Because of the presence of dark malt in the grist, the mashing temperatures were lower than for Ale. Loftus suggested mashes at 158º, 176º and 188º F when three mashes were employed and 158º, 164º, 180º and 190º F when there were four. More stirring of the mash was needed owing to the pasty consistency of the darker grains. (Source: "The Brewer" by William Loftus, 1856, pages 66-67.)

Truman's Bottling Keeping Porter, brewed in 1850, used four mashes, at the following temperatures:

Mashing schema Truman's 1850 Bottling Keeping Porter
	strike heat	water (brls)	mash temp.	wort (brls)	OG wort
mash 1	174	520	164	280	1098.335
mash 2	180	280	170	320	1066.48
mash 3	170	360	169	380	1038.78
mash 4	175	320	169	320	1016.62
total		1480		1300
Source:
Brewing logs from the Truman archive in the London Metropolitan Archive.

The wort was boiled for between 60 and 90 minutes. To extract the bitterness more completely from the hops, they could be steeped in water at between 142º and 172º F for several hours before brewing started. (Source: "The Brewer" by William Loftus, 1856, page 67.)

Yeast was pitched when the wort was between 60 and 68º F in winter and as cold as possible in summer. Primary fermentation was quicker than for Ale, lasting just 48 hours. Care was taken not to let the wort get above 74 to 78º F, presumably through the use of attemperators. The wort was transferred into cleansing casks when the gravity had dropped to 1027-1030º and was vatted at 1017-1019º. (Source: "The Brewer" by William Loftus, 1856, page 68.)

Porter was matured in as large a vat as possible. The larger the vessel, the better and more evenly, the beer matured. Wastage due to evaporation was also less from a large vat. A supply of Old Porter was maintained for mixing with Mild Porter. About one third aged Porter was mixed with two-thirds Mild Porter, though the proportions varied from brewery to brewery and at different times of year. (Source: "The Brewer" by William Loftus, 1856, pages 68-69.)

Sending out unblended young beer wasn't a great idea: "Never send out Mild Porter entire, as the admixture, if done by others, may spoil the article, and the fault be charged upon your management." (Source: "The Brewer" by William Loftus, 1856, page 69.)

Porter intended for export was vatted for 10 to 12 months but in the last 3 or 4 weeks was left open to allow it to flatten before being racked in to shipment casks. The rocking of the ship set the beer fermenting again and there was too much risks of casks bursting during the voyage if the Porter weren't flattened first. Soft spiles, which would allow some of the pressure to escape, were fitted to the casks. (Source: "The Brewer" by William Loftus, 1856, page 70.)

Free Mash Tun Act

A highly significant piece of legislation was adopted in 1880: the so-called Free Mash Tun Act. It introduced a new method of taxing beer and removed restrictions on ingredients.

The 1830 Beer Act had repealed all excise duty on beer. Instead, the raw materials needed to brew beer were taxed instead. In 1880 the malt and hop tax were replaced with excise duty on beer, based on the original gravity of the wort. This duty was payable at the end of the month.

As soon as the wort had run into the fermenting tun, it was checked by an Excise Officer to determine its volume and gravity. This was the basis on which beer duty was calculated. An allowance of 6% was made by the Excise for losses during fermentation. At the end of each month a calculation was made to convert the total amount of beer brewed into its equivalent in standard barrels. Should the yield have been fewer than 4 standard barrels per quarter, then the duty was levied on the materials used, rather than the number of standard barrels produced. (Source: "Principles & Practice of Brewing" by Walter J. Sykes & Arthur R. Ling, 1907, pages 528-529.)

For Excise purposes, a quarter of malt was deemed to be 336 pounds. The following amounts of other fermentables were considered by the Excise to be the equivalent of a quarter of malt:

cane sugar 224 lbs
glucose or invert sugar 256 lbs
flaked maize or rice 256 lbs
No. 1 syrup 272 lbs
No. 2 syrup 328 lbs
(Source: "Principles & Practice of Brewing" by Walter J. Sykes & Arthur R. Ling, 1907, page 529.)

Breweries were now able to use a whole range of adjuncts, such as maize, rice and unmalted barley. This was the final nail in the coffin for private brewers, whose last advantage over commercial brewers had been the ability to use whatever ingredients they chose. As duty was paid on the wort, there was a big financial; disincentive to age beer for long periods. The tax already having been paid, it meant huge amounts of capital were tied up in maturing beer. Fashion had already been moving away from the "aged" taste in beer (derived from the action of brettanomyces). The decline in production of vatted Stock Ales and Stouts was further accelerated by this change in the law.

Not all drinkers were so keen on brewers being given a free rein to use what they liked in their beer. In 1886 an organisation called The Pure Movement was Formed in Kent to campaign for restrictions on the ingredients used in brewing. Originally based in in the Southeast, the group expanded its activities to cover the whole of the country at the end of the year. "As a general principle, the average Briton believes in malt and hops as a sheet anchor of the Constitution, and a million scientific statements to the contrary would not convince him that good beer can be brewed in any but an orthodox way." (Source: DNW June 10th 1886.)

A Pure Beer Bill was introduced to parliament in 1886. It would have compelled wholesalers and retailers of beer that contained anything other than malted barley and hops to display a prominent sign saying what else was in it. Sounds fair enough to me, and way ahead of its time. Of course, it didn't pass and never became law. (Source: News of the World, May 23rd 1886.)

Beer production fell between 1900 and 1910, partly in response to a tax increase in 1901 to help fund the Boer War. It began to rise again from 1911 until the outbreak of WW I. Average gravity fell by about 2º between 1900 and 1914. That would turn out to be insignificant compared to the massive changes in beer strengths wrought by the two world wars.

2009 Bokbierfestival - the day after

I thought I'd report back on this year's festival. Without photos*, though, as I forgot my camera.

First thing that became apparent is that every single person I met had been to the Molen festival the night before. The one I hadn't been able to go to. And kept telling how great it had been. Bastards. Though it does look like it will become an annual event. Next year. I'll go next year.

I can't really comment on general beer quality as I was very conservative in my approach. What I mean is, I stuck with beers I could trust. For the most part. Old favourites like SNAB Ijsbock. And reliable things like Jopen Dubbelbok. Both were, as I expected, excellent. As was Keesmann Bock. Then again, you can't go wrong with Franconian beer. Christoffel's Bock wasn't bad, either.

My only duff choice was my very first beer. From Phoenix. It poured a pale amber colour. "Is this a Bock beer?" I asked. "All the beers at the festival are Boks." That wasn't quite an answer to my question. It had a funny sour taste. "Lactic acid infection" the brewer from Marble brewery said after just a sniff. I wasn't going to argue with a professional.

Three. That's how many books I bought. One a brand new history of Van Vollenhoven. Another about gruit and medieval Dutch beer.

I went twice. To the festival. On Saturday afternoon and Sunday afternoon. (Obviously no-one with even a half a brain would go to an evening session.) I must have enjoyed it then, musn't I?

*Of this year's event. I've included a snap from last year.

Coalheavers don't want to get drunk

It wasn't just WW I and taxation that drove down British beers gravities. Public taste and changing fashion payed a part, too. As did being able to drink considerable quantities without getting plastered.

"People generally drink much more beer now than ever they did but the proportion of alcohol consumed is not any greater. Statistics of all countries show this, even in spirit drinking countries, ie that the amount of alcohol consumed per head is a steady quantity. The beer brewed now is much lighter than the beer of former days. Men will have beer. Coalheavers and all who want a quantity of drink don’t care for water but on the other hand they don’t want to get drunk. they are insisting more and more on a light beer. Brewers are now recognizing this demand. The great bulk of beer drunk is "four ale". Those higher in the social scale who have no extraordinary thirst to quench prefer something heavier. They drink less in quantity but as far as alcohol is concerned there is not much to choose between the two."
Interview with Mr Reeve, manager of Truman, Hanbury and Buxton's Brewery, Brick Lane, 22 October [1897] (Booth B348, pp62-69) http://booth.lse.ac.uk/notebooks/b348/jpg/62.html

Scottish Shilling Ales in 1909

In the early decades of the 19th century, most of the beer produced in Scotland consisted of Ales. The relative strength was indicated by a shilling value, which originally indicated the wholesale price of a 54 gallon hogshead.

Often referred to as Scotch Ale or Edinburgh Ale, these beers came in a variety of strengths though the most renowned were the strongest. By the early 20th century Shilling Ales were going out of fashion, being displaced by English-style Mild Ales and Burton-style Strong Ales.

Before 1880, Shilling Ales were 100% pale malt, but after the Free Mash Tun Act of 1880, also included sugar and sometimes maize. They were hopped with a combination of American and Kent hops.

Boiling times varied greatly over time. Up until 1850, they were pretty short, usually just over an hour. By the 1890’s, three hours or more was common. This is an overview of Younger’s boiling times:

Youngers 140/- boil times
year	boil time (hours)
1831	1
1847	0.83
1851	1.17
1858	1.25
1868	1.5
1879	1.33
1885	2.5
1898	3
1913	2.25

Throughout the course of the 19th century Scottish brewers gradually raised fermentation temperatures. By 1900 they were much the same as in England. Pitching temperatures varied depending on gravity. The strongest were pitched at 58º F, the weakest at 61º F. Raised fermentation temperatures had reduced fermentation times considerably. In “Scottish Ale Brewer” (by WH Roberts, published in 1847) a pitching temperature of 51-52º F and a fermentation time of two weeks is given as typical. As you can see from the table below, by 1898 it was less than a week:

Younger 1898 160/- fermentation schedule
		temp	gravity
Pitch		56	1111
day 1	Morning	63	1095
	Evening	65.5	1086
day 1	Morning	69.5	1065
	Evening	72.5	1060
day 3	Morning	73	1045
	Evening	64.5	1042
day 4	Morning	62	1042

With brewers like Younger increasingly concentrating on their numbered Scotch Ales (No.1 and No. 2), Shilling Ales gradually faded away in the interwar period.

100/-
OG: 1070 - 1080º
FG: 1030 - 1035º
ABV: 50 - 60%
Apparent attenuation: 4.5 - 5%
EBC:
lbs hops per barrel 1.5 - 2
IBU:
Grist: Scottish pale malt, middle-eastern pale malt, Danish pale malt, Indian pale malt, maize, sugar.
Hops: Kent, Worcester, California, Oregon.


120/-
OG: 1080 - 1090º
FG: 1035 - 1040º
ABV: 6 - 7%
Apparent attenuation: 50 - 60%
EBC:
lbs hops per barrel 3 – 3.5
IBU:
Grist: Scottish pale malt, middle-eastern pale malt, Danish pale malt, Indian pale malt, maize, sugar.
Hops: Kent, Worcester, California, Oregon.


140/-
OG: 1090 - 1100º
FG: 1035 - 1040º
ABV: 8 – 8.5%
Apparent attenuation: 60 - 65%
EBC:
lbs hops per barrel 3.5 – 4.5
IBU:
Grist: Scottish pale malt, middle-eastern pale malt, Danish pale malt, Indian pale malt, maize, sugar.
Hops: Kent, Worcester, California, Oregon.


160/-
OG: 1100 - 1110º
FG: 1040 - 1045º
ABV: 9 - 10%
Apparent attenuation: 60 - 65%
EBC:
lbs hops per barrel 4.5 - 5
IBU:
Grist: Scottish pale malt, middle-eastern pale malt, Danish pale malt, Indian pale malt, maize, sugar.
Hops: Kent, Worcester, California, Oregon.




Example beers

Thomas Usher 1912 100/-
OG	1064
FG	1027
ABV	4.90%
Apparent attenuation	57.81%
Malt
Gaza pale malt	18%
Danish pale malt	29%
Calcutta pale malt	18%
maize	7%
DL sugar	8%
cane sugar	20%
Hops*	100%
Kent yearling hops	33%
American yearling hops	33%
Kent hops	33%
* my guess

Younger 1898 140/-
OG	1101
FG	1039
ABV	8.20%
Apparent attenuation	61.39%
Malt
Foreign pale malt	32%
Scottish 2-row pale malt	60%
dextrose	5%
glucose	3%
Hops	100%
Kent yearling hops	18%
Californian yearling hops	26%
American yearling hops	43%
Kent hops	13%

Younger 1898 160/-
OG	1111
FG	1042
ABV	9.13
Apparent attenuation	62.16%
Malt
Foreign pale malt	32%
Scottish 2-row pale malt	60%
dextrose	5%
glucose	3%
Hops	100%
Kent yearling hops	18%
Californian yearling hops	26%
American yearling hops	43%
Kent hops	13%